Adam Savage: TSA saw my junk, missed 12″ razor blades

Full-body scanners? They may see you naked, but they aren't seeing large, …

The TSA isn't the most respected of governmental agencies right now, but at least it comes by the poor reputation honestly. The lack of standards, inconsistent application of searches and policies, and occasional rude agent all combine to make flying an unpleasant experience. It's often derided as "security theater," which describes the experience of Mythbuster Adam Savage before a recent flight.

Savage was put through the full-body scanner, and while he joked that it made his penis feel small, no one seemed to notice the items he was carrying with him. The video tells the rest of the story.

And I notice I brought this thing with me...

If the TSA thinks you can hijack a plane with saline solution and nail clippers, Savage's 12" razor blades are the equivalent of a nuclear bomb. Since the blades weren't anywhere near Savage's privates, they likely would have been missed by the pat-down as well.

Appealing to statistics to not do something is wrong headed. When a method is exposed that have a good chance of success, we must react to that and not to "oh, no bomb has gotten on board in a flight originating in the US since whenever".

So basically, because these scanners could detect bombs with some fairly high degree of accuracy, they're absolutely necessary despite the lack of bombs? Or are you talking about the "good chance of success" of non-metallic explosives hidden in underwear? Because the chance of that being successful, from the admittedly very simple statistics of a single failed attempt, seems to be zero.

In other news, my tiger repellant seems to be working perfectly, as I don't see any tigers around!

As well, on that trip they even swabbed my hands with wet cotton for "explosive residue". The first time the machine didnt read the swab, so they had to re-swab me (which as far as i know would diminish results since they already wetted my hands, thus wiping away any residue there).

What's even more amusing is when you know what those machines are looking for, and what can give false positives.

Let's just say that summer sausage can mask many things...

You know, when I first read this, I thought you were referring to the body scanners -- use sausage as a "prosthetic" with something else inside. Then I realized you were talking about the chem residue analyzer. Would work for either, though!

Do we feel safer yet? TSA defeated at multiple points by something from the meat department.

I hadn't thought of using the sausage as a prosthetic...that'd certainly make people feel better about the touching of their junk, though. ;-p

But yes, all cured meats spoof chem analyzers--because you cure meat with one of the components of gunpowder.

You're not safe. No one is. The truth is terrorism just isn't that much of a threat compared to the rest of your day to day life.

The probability of dying in a car crash turns out to be small despite the horrific pictures and stories. Does this mean seat belts are just there to inconvenience motorist and air bags and anit-lock brakes are only there for boosting automakers bottom line?

Or is the probability small because we take certain steps in response to certain dangers?

How many terrorists boarded planes in the US with bombs pre-9/11?

How many deadly auto accidents were there pre-9/11?

Is it sinking in?

Appealing to statistics to not do something is wrong headed. When a method is exposed that have a good chance of success, we must react to that and not to "oh, no bomb has gotten on board in a flight originating in the US since whenever".

I'm quite disappointed that a site of the caliber of Ars Technica would link to a Gizmodo story (re: further reading) which has little to no actual additional information on the piece. I really expected better of Ars.

Does the TSA actually aid in the security of the airport rather than just massively inconceivable everybody for little to no reason, failing at what they actually intend to do?

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means...

That being said, I think the short answer is "no." I think Adam's proven what I've often thought: that with enough creativity a person could get some pretty dangerous stuff on a plane.

It doesn't take much creativity when the TSA's been acting so -dumb-.

Even a little bit of research can reveal all manner of things that could be used to blow up a plane that would sail through the TSA checkpoint with nary a glance--and which can be readily obtained without any sort of licensing or other access requirements.

Well, now the TSA needs to post the body scan and scans of Mr. Savarage's belongings to show that Adam here is lying...(or at least state that they have reviewed the scans in detail and no such objects were to be found). Either way, they will dig themselves deeper into the pit of public distrust.

In TSA's defense though, they don't only look for suspicious objects, but for behavior patterns as well. I would assume that Adam wasn't displaying any odd behavior patterns aside from being happy and famous.

Well, now the TSA needs to post the body scan and scans of Mr. Savarage's belongings to show that Adam here is lying...(or at least state that they have reviewed the scans in detail and no such objects were to be found). Either way, they will dig themselves deeper into the pit of public distrust.

...especially since they keep insisting that the images from the pornoscanner "can't" be saved or exported.

But in the very next sentence you say the TSA should react to threats with a high probability of success. Do you realise that the likelihood of an event can be estimated using statistical data? These numbers don't come from a sense of fear or other vague feelings.

Quiet! That is exactly were the TSA gets it threat assessment from. You're going to blow this whole thing.

Also, why so much attention on airplanes? Ok, yes, 9/11, but that plane wasn't blown up. The metal detector failed, people got on with box cutters, and the planes were hijacked. The technology to stop that attack was already in place, but the technology failed. Bummer, right? A plane can be hijacked with anything if you have a cabin full of defenseless passengers, though. Fortunately, we have three very effective deterrents against that ever happening again: locked cockpit doors, armed Air Marshals, and armed pilots. This ensures that, should technology fail again (and it will always fail some of the time), the offender is not the best armed person on the plane. In other words, this problem is already solved without any extra encroachment on the Fourth Amendment.

If the concern is that people can be shot, we already have gun control laws that extend beyond airports, and if you want to improve on that, you need to clamp down on smuggling or toughen said laws/repeal the Second Amendment.

If your concern is that people can be stabbed, I suggest martial arts. Knives are not effective weapons in untrained hands, unless you couldn't really defend yourself anyways.

If your concern is that people can be blown up, you're pretty much just screwed.

Appealing to statistics to not do something is wrong headed. When a method is exposed that have a good chance of success, we must react to that and not to "oh, no bomb has gotten on board in a flight originating in the US since whenever".

So basically, because these scanners could detect bombs with some fairly high degree of accuracy, they're absolutely necessary despite the lack of bombs? Or are you talking about the "good chance of success" of non-metallic explosives hidden in underwear? Because the chance of that being successful, from the admittedly very simple statistics of a single failed attempt, seems to be zero.

In other news, my tiger repellant seems to be working perfectly, as I don't see any tigers around!

What failed in this case, the scanner or the human interpreting the images? My bet in this case is first and foremost the human. It points out that scanners are not effective if everyone has to go through them, because then the human interpreter is under pressure to keep up the pace and will lose focus after a short while. Spot checks or random more thorough scans would probably do more to enhance security and annoy fewer people. I actually didn't mind a spot check inside JFK by the boarding gate, they swabbed my bag for explosives, I wasn't in line and focused on getting out of the zoo, I was myself far more patient and they were far more courteous doing the spot check than trying to keep the line from stalling to zero speed. I have not yet gone through the full body scanner, my guess is the major annoyance really stems from how slow it makes things and having to adopt that pose.

I wonder though, for those who have a strict civil liberties bent, you probably would resent a rather effective and cheap method to ferret out potential threats, the customs style banter and questioning.

I'm baffled why we're spending so much money and throwing away rights, just to possibly maybe potentially prevent a terrorist from boarding a flight someday. Remember, our airport security measures have never once prevented an actual attack. Not once! Yet we're spending how much on these useless security measures? Wouldn't that money be better spent on guard rails or pedestrian crossing lights?

If we lock down the airports, terrorists will just switch to other targets. Blow up a car in a tunnel and kill hundreds via smoke inhalation. Blow up a bridge. Sink a ferry. Taint the food at a single restaurant with radioactive poison. Dirty bomb every hospital in a major metro area.... Etc etc... and these are just a couple ideas off the top of my head. It took just a few seconds to conceive of them.

There is no such thing as terrorism prevention. We should not throw away our rights while pretending otherwise.

This money would be better spent on stuff that would actually save lives! (without subjecting us to life in a police state)

Also, why so much attention on airplanes? Ok, yes, 9/11, but that plane wasn't blown up. The metal detector failed, people got on with box cutters, and the planes were hijacked. The technology to stop that attack was already in place, but the technology failed. Bummer, right?

I know it wasn't your point, however I just wanted to clarify something.

The metal detectors didn't fail. Box cutters were allowed on-board back then. As were pocket knives, bottle openers, lighters, and a whole host of other things that aren't allowed now.

I have not yet gone through the full body scanner, my guess is the major annoyance really stems from how slow it makes things and having to adopt that pose.

...and having a stranger see you naked, and the increased cancer threat, and the public humiliation, and the violation of your 4th amendment rights, and...

Quote:

I wonder though, for those who have a strict civil liberties bent, you probably would resent a rather effective and cheap method to ferret out potential threats, the customs style banter and questioning.

Questioning doesn't make you appear naked to some voyeur, nor does it expose you to ionizing radiation. Bring it on.

I got my Swiss Army knife through by accident. I get back to San Francisco and I'm at my friends place, and i feel something in my jacket. My knife, it fell through a hole in the pocket and was in between the leather and lining. I did the same exact thing "What the fuck?! They let met get this through but put me through all that?! Fuck these guys!"

I've had this happen as well. I had left my knife in my backpack from camping the previous weekend. Except I didn't realize I had it until the TSA person on the return flight found it and confiscated it. It was a nice knife too.

I hate Ars covering the TSA thing. It's not anything to do with technology or anything that Ars normally covers.It only has a small connection with internet nerd rage about the whole thing, and from such a standpoint is only going to report on a certain angle.

It's not technology news, leave it to Reddit to get into a mouth froth over.

I hate Ars covering the TSA thing. It's not anything to do with technology or anything that Ars normally covers.It only has a small connection with internet nerd rage about the whole thing, and from such a standpoint is only going to report on a certain angle.

It's not technology news, leave it to Reddit to get into a mouth froth over.

The recent kerfuffle is about backscatter scanners--that's tech, ain't it? And this is a tech site? Or did I sign up at the wrong place?

It's clear the blades were in his bag and didn't go through the body scanner. Pulling them out of his pocket created a funny suggestion, which is more important to an entertainer than the truth. TSA jokes are so November 2010, though. I'm already moving on to the hilarious freshman Republican Congressmen jokes.

How does one blow up a plane with razor blades, by the way?

Finally, how many man-hours will be wasted watching the first minute of that clip?

I hate Ars covering the TSA thing. It's not anything to do with technology or anything that Ars normally covers.It only has a small connection with internet nerd rage about the whole thing, and from such a standpoint is only going to report on a certain angle.

It's not technology news, leave it to Reddit to get into a mouth froth over.

I find the backscatter and millimeter-wave machines, the secure neetwork connections they supposedly use to transmit and store the images, and the training TSA agents receive to be exactly the kind of technology news that interest me. Keep up the good work Ars Staff!

I hate Ars covering the TSA thing. It's not anything to do with technology or anything that Ars normally covers.It only has a small connection with internet nerd rage about the whole thing, and from such a standpoint is only going to report on a certain angle.

It's not technology news, leave it to Reddit to get into a mouth froth over.

You don't consider the "nekkid"-scanners technology? You have a very narrow view then.

I think most people are misunderstanding the whole Airport security thing. The intention was never to catch every dangerous object that gets through. It is to deter potential threats and scare away any potential terrorists that decides it's not worth the risk of getting caught. The imposing and hyped up security is to prevent anyone from making a decision to bring weapons on a plane in the first place. That's not to say that the TSA are super effective, but most people are making a big deal over nothing.

I haven't been on a plane for a few months, but I've never had any inconvenience in the security lines. Maybe other airports are worse, but it never takes more than 10 minutes to get through security. Customs are much worse, sometimes making you wait an hour just to get in the airport.

It's not so much that you could blow up the plane but that it's a blade--a weapon--significantly more threatening than the boxcutters the '01 hijackers used.

But, for the sake of completeness, let's see....

Using it as a method of short-circuiting a laptop battery, you could improvise a grenade. Using it to cut open the panels on the ceiling, you could pull out some of the O2 generation canisters, then saw into one--that would probably cause an explosion. Break a window and chuck it into the engine, and you can cause FOD and flameout--assuming you aim well enough, anyway. Cause a short-circuit in the underfloor wiring harnesses, and attempt to ignite the centerline fuel tank.

Or, y'know, just break into the cockpit and kill the pilot with it, then push the yoke forward and hold it there for a while.

Also, why so much attention on airplanes? Ok, yes, 9/11, but that plane wasn't blown up. The metal detector failed, people got on with box cutters, and the planes were hijacked. The technology to stop that attack was already in place, but the technology failed. Bummer, right?

I know it wasn't your point, however I just wanted to clarify something.

It's not so much that you could blow up the plane but that it's a blade--a weapon--significantly more threatening than the boxcutters the '01 hijackers used.

But, for the sake of completeness, let's see....

Using it as a method of short-circuiting a laptop battery, you could improvise a grenade. Using it to cut open the panels on the ceiling, you could pull out some of the O2 generation canisters, then saw into one--that would probably cause an explosion. Break a window and chuck it into the engine, and you can cause FOD and flameout--assuming you aim well enough, anyway. Cause a short-circuit in the underfloor wiring harnesses, and attempt to ignite the centerline fuel tank.

Or, y'know, just break into the cockpit and kill the pilot with it, then push the yoke forward and hold it there for a while.

Also, why so much attention on airplanes? Ok, yes, 9/11, but that plane wasn't blown up. The metal detector failed, people got on with box cutters, and the planes were hijacked. The technology to stop that attack was already in place, but the technology failed. Bummer, right?

I know it wasn't your point, however I just wanted to clarify something.

Also, why so much attention on airplanes? Ok, yes, 9/11, but that plane wasn't blown up. The metal detector failed, people got on with box cutters, and the planes were hijacked. The technology to stop that attack was already in place, but the technology failed. Bummer, right?

I know it wasn't your point, however I just wanted to clarify something.

I am astounded that the many tech oriented minds here completely missed the point of my analogy.

People are likely to die from flying through a windshield. Put on seat belts, now less likely to die from flying through windshield.

People can get seriously hurt even die from flying glass pieces. Use shatter-proof glass, now less likely to die from flying glass.

Underwear bomber got on board. Use pat-down, now underwear bomber is less likely to get on board.

In this line of threat-response thinking, you can see how appealing to actual auto death rates or previous bombings is not relevant.

No. If the chances (made up for the sake of argument here) of going thru the windshield w/no seatbelt in a 70mph crash are 80% and with a seatbelt it drops to 5%, that is a significant amount of saved lives, especially if there still over 100 people killed daily in car wrecks, even with seat belts. Someone had a figure of over 3300 dead from driving accidents monthly earlier in the thread.

1 underwear bomber ever. The TSA has admitted the scanner wouldn't have turned the underwear bomber up. If he didn't trigger the metal detector twice, he wouldn't have gotten a pat down. So as long as he wasn't a dumb ass and opt out of the scanner, he would have gotten on the plane. Oops, there goes your logic

It's not so much that you could blow up the plane but that it's a blade--a weapon--significantly more threatening than the boxcutters the '01 hijackers used.

But, for the sake of completeness, let's see....

Using it as a method of short-circuiting a laptop battery, you could improvise a grenade.

Why risk getting caught with razor blades, when a simple wire could accomplish the same thing?

Quote:

Using it to cut open the panels on the ceiling, you could pull out some of the O2 generation canisters, then saw into one--that would probably cause an explosion. Break a window and chuck it into the engine, and you can cause FOD and flameout--assuming you aim well enough, anyway. Cause a short-circuit in the underfloor wiring harnesses, and attempt to ignite the centerline fuel tank.

Or, y'know, just break into the cockpit and kill the pilot with it, then push the yoke forward and hold it there for a while.

Note the avoidance behavior, btw. PSD has successfully changed the dialogue from a discussion about the intrusive and useless behavior of the TSA to nitpicking about an unrelated analogy.

I am astounded that the many tech oriented minds here completely missed the point of my analogy.

People are likely to die from flying through a windshield. Put on seat belts, now less likely to die from flying through windshield.

People can get seriously hurt even die from flying glass pieces. Use shatter-proof glass, now less likely to die from flying glass.

Underwear bomber got on board. Use pat-down, now underwear bomber is less likely to get on board.

In this line of threat-response thinking, you can see how appealing to actual auto death rates or previous bombings is not relevant.

Ah, we're ignoring reality. That would be where we all went wrong; we were trying to determine the actual threats instead of being scared of possible threats! It doesn't matter that in reality, the actual underwear bomber didn't get on a plane in the US, and thus wouldn't have gone through the scanners. Someone else might at some point, so we have to get out in front of that. And it doesn't matter that he didn't actually blow up a plane, or for that matter that no one has blown up an American plane with a bomb ever. What matters is that someone might, so we have to stop these theoretical people. But only once they've bought a ticket, reached the airport, and made it to the security checkpoint. And, going back to the article, its perfectly okay to focus so much on checking for these theoretical bombers that two 12-inch blades get through without comment.

Note the avoidance behavior, btw. PSD has successfully changed the dialogue from a discussion about the intrusive and useless behavior of the TSA to nitpicking about an unrelated analogy.

I am astounded that the many tech oriented minds here completely missed the point of my analogy.

People are likely to die from flying through a windshield. Put on seat belts, now less likely to die from flying through windshield.

People can get seriously hurt even die from flying glass pieces. Use shatter-proof glass, now less likely to die from flying glass.

Underwear bomber got on board. Use pat-down, now underwear bomber is less likely to get on board.

In this line of threat-response thinking, you can see how appealing to actual auto death rates or previous bombings is not relevant.

Except you conveniently ignore all other factors, such as: cost, time, and comfort.

This is where statistics are important. It helps measure that you are getting the best bang for your buck. The reason many people have such an issue with the new TSA policies is because the new policies are simply not worth it. They provide marginally better security (some would argue no additional security) for an immense cost and huge inconvenience.

For example, if I tried to sell you a product that would keep your house from burning up if you left your gas on, but the equipment costs $1,000,000, what would you do? Despite the fact that preventing house fires is great, you would look at the statistics (as well as other metrics): how much is my house worth, how likely is a gas leak, what percentage of house fires are caused by gas leaks, etc.

People are doing the same here, and the overwhelming conclusion is that the new policies are stupid.

Why risk getting caught with razor blades, when a simple wire could accomplish the same thing?

Hey, you asked how it could be done. Never said it was the best way to do it....

Quote:

As observed with United flight 93, none of that's gonna happen.

If one guy can get 'em in, then more than one can--and if guys with razors outnumber guys who're willing to take a cut or two, then it'll still work.

Overall point, regardless of the merit behind the TSA's forbiddance of razors (which just makes the whole thing pointless, when you bring up the United-93 example) is that forbidden materials were smuggled onto the plane, materials that should have been easily apparent to the scanner--hence, showing the incompetence of the security measures that are supposed to keep us safe, but which have no effect -anyway- given the new 'enhanced' behavior of passengers when confronted by attempts to hijack.